SEBELIUS: Well, it's been a very exciting and interesting place to
be. I wouldn't have missed it.

DOWD: Well, I wanted to sort of start out broader, about 10,000 feet,
and have you reflect back on the last year. A year ago, if you think
about where things stood, the Democrats were enthusiastic, everybody was
engaged, the independents were totally on board, people were
(inaudible), Democrats in the administration were riding a big wave, and
today a year later, things aren't as they were back then. And we put
together some glass to sort of show the graph of that. If you can see
from these graphics, president's approval is way down from a year ago.
His approval on the economy is way down from last year at this same
time, and his approval on health care reform is way down from where it
was back then. And so the question I have is -- it's Oscar night today,
so I'm going to paraphrase from a movie, "Wizard of Oz," we're not in
Kansas anymore. And I just want to know, what do you think happened
over the course of this year and why we are where we are today?

SEBELIUS: Well, Matt, I think that a lot of Americans are worried
about what happens next, worried about jobs and the economy, worried
about their health security, want to know, you know, will they be able
to protect themselves and their families? And certainly the current
situation is shaky.

The first thing the president did was a big job spill with the
Recovery Act, and that is beginning to pay off. Stabilize the economy.
We're seeing finally a stop in the bleeding of job loss, and hopefully
we'll see a pickup in -- we've seen a huge pickup in productivity; we're
going to see that followed by jobs.

But the worrying about health security is still going on. It's why
the president tackled it in the beginning. You know, we see people
opening their statements this year and having jaw-dropping rate
increases, and they have no control over it. They feel like they are
really caught in the middle.

DOWD: Do you think the administration has made any mistakes at all
along the way that have led to where he stands today, that they made
errors or dropped the ball on anything over the course of the last year?

SEBELIUS: Well, I don't think there is any question. The president
would have loved to have the health debate move at a more rapid pace.
You know, you referenced my coming out of Kansas. One of the things
that happens in legislative sessions in state legislatures is that they
have a timetable. We have to pass a budget. You have to move things
forward. That's what I get from Americans all over the country. They
want something to be done. They want things to move to the next step,
and I think that's why the president now has called on Congress to have
an up-or-down vote on health reform. Let's get the job done, let's
finish what has been talked about for the last year, and make health
reform real for American people.

DOWD: Well, do you think one of the mistakes, as you reflect on
this, that maybe the president should have been more aggressive or more
assertive or more clear earlier on health care, that he waited too long,
until the last couple of weeks, to really engage on it and present what
he thought was the right thing? Do you think that was too long of a
time and ceded too much authority to Congress too early?

SEBELIUS: I think there's a balance. Clearly, the members in
Congress had to arm (ph) the legislation or it was dead on arrival. It
couldn't have been written in the White House and dropped on Congress.
You can't imagine how many conversations I had with folks during my
confirmation hearing who thought I must have the bill in my purse, you
know, just waiting for it to be given. So that took a while for
Congress to fully engage.

But there have been more hearings, more discussions, more debates,
more ideas, more plans, and the president, I can tell you, has been
fully engaged from day one. What I can tell you, because of that
partnership, the bill has passed the House, the bill has passed the
Senate with a supermajority. We have comprehensive legislation for the
first time. We are in the final chapter, mostly because the American
people are desperate. They are caught in this world where they have no
control over their insurance rates. They are seeing next week, next
month, their rates rise enormously, and over and over again, people are
losing their coverage.

DOWD: Well, one of the things that, one of the things that people
have faulted the administration for is not building a more -- bigger and
stronger bipartisan coalition on health care reform, that they're
faulted for that. And even if you reflect back on President Obama, then
candidate Obama, talked a lot about the desire and need to build a
bigger and broader coalition in order to get things done. And we have
pulled something from one of his speeches there that -- let's listen to
it and then I want to talk about that.

DOWD: Is it -- didn't the president, then candidate Obama, warn
against just what the administration is doing and just what Democrats in
the House and Senate are doing? He warned against exactly what's
happening today.

SEBELIUS: Well, actually, I think part of the pace of this debate
was a real attempt to have a bipartisan approach. The House bill had
Republican support. In the Senate bill, there were months spent with
six senators, three Republicans and three Democrats, in a room,
negotiating, adding ideas to the bill, trying to figure out a strategy
to move forward in a bipartisan fashion.

As you know, the Senate bill didn't pass 50 plus one, it passed with
60 votes, a supermajority, and I think the president would love to have
Republican votes. What he has is lots of Republican ideas -- selling
insurance across state lines, making sure that we crack down very
aggressively on fraud and abuse, you know, moving forward.

But there is a fundamental difference. The Republicans feel
strongly that insurance companies should have less regulation than they
do now, less consumer protection, less oversight. The president feels
strongly that we need to change the rules of the road, that we can no
longer have a private health system where insurance companies get to
pick and choose, where they can lock people out and price people out.
And that's really one of the fundamental divides. And even though there
are lots of Republican ideas in the bill, I'm not sure -- you know, we
are hopeful that there will be Republican votes, but I'm not sure there
will be.

DOWD: Well, I think one of the big Republican concerns and a
concern of a lot of other people, including Warren Buffett, who
mentioned it this week, is that what is going to happen with costs? Is
anything getting really done with costs? I think everybody agrees that
coverage will be expanded to 30 million people or so, but cost is the
real factor. And what three things in the bill will lower health care
costs in the next three years? In the next three years, by 2012, what
three things in the bill that the president is pushing will lower costs?

SEBELIUS: Well, there are huge delivery changes in the bill. So
looking at where we're spending money right now, that not only it's not
adding to health quality, but drives costs. Patient readmission, the
changes will be beginning, so we begin to pay hospitals based on who
does good follow-up care and who doesn't. Good for patients, good for
costs. (inaudible) care, working in a more coordinated fashion with
providers and hospitals. The kind of medical help that people actually
really like as patients that also really pays huge dividends, so you
coordinate care. The introduction of health information technology,
which really drives a lower error rate for docs, but also dramatic
administrative simplification. Taking of that 30 cents of every dollar
that does not pay for health care and taking it out of the system.

Certainly the issue of taxing insurance plans, the highest priced
insurance plans, beginning to change those patterns. Economists all say
has a huge cost driver. The Medicare commission is a huge cost driver.

DOWD: One of the things, the other thing that I think Republicans
have raised is a concern about the expansion of the deficit by this
bill, and Representative Paul Ryan, who was at that summit--

SEBELIUS: Right.

DOWD: -- spoke about that, and talked about the sort of budget
shenanigans in his view that are being done to make it look better than
it is. And so, let's watch that tape.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RYAN: The bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a trillion
dollars, but ten years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars,
to pay for six years of spending. Now, what's the true ten-year cost of
this bill? In ten yeas, that's $2.3 trillion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOWD: Is he right about that, that you're basically saying we're
going to have ten years of revenues, (inaudible) six years of cost, and
that makes the bill look better than it is?

SEBELIUS: Actually, he's absolutely wrong about it. The neutral,
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says just the opposite, that
there is about $150 billion, $130 billion in savings the first ten
years. But then almost $1 trillion in deficit reduction. In fact, most
of the savings don't even kick in until after 2014, after the bill has
expanded. They go out the full two decades. They look at all the
spending, all the savings.

And I would say, Matt, that the Congressional Budget Office is very
conservative in the savings. They really don't say prevention and
wellness efforts save any money, and we think that saves a dramatic amount.

DOWD: But doesn't the Congressional Budget Office only make those
assumptions and that analysis based on what they get? And so if the
legislative leadership tells them to analyze this according to ten years
of revenue and six years of expenses, they put out a bill that says it
makes it -- it saves on the deficit?

SEBELIUS: What we're both talking about and what Representative
Ryan referred to is the first decade, where some of the implementation
strategies are measured as people have demanded, you know, look at the
costs first before you add new people. That's exactly the way the bill
is structured, but then they look at the second ten years.

So the notion that somehow we have tricked the American public -- I
mean, when you look at 20 years and they say the first ten years is $130
billion worth of deficit reduction, the second ten years is a $1
trillion. This is hardly a gimmick.

DOWD: Well, one final controversial thing that has to be resolved,
as you know--

SEBELIUS: There's not just one final--

(CROSSTALK)

DOWD: One very important, I think, controversial thing, is that a
few votes -- Representative Bart Stupak has talked about the need that
the Senate bill has to include abortion language that was in the House
bill, to prevent federal funding of abortion and an expansion on
services. He says he carries with him 11 votes. Can you pass a bill or
can the president pass a bill and the Congress pass a bill without those
votes?

SEBELIUS: Well, the goal is the same. The president has said from
the outset, we don't want to change the status quo on abortion funding.
Neither the Senate or the House bill has any federal funding for
abortion, none. Yes, abortion services are provided, and people will
pay out of their own pockets, in both the Senate and the House, but they
do it in slightly different ways--

DOWD: Is Representative Stupak wrong about this?

SEBELIUS: Well, I think Representative Stupak has worked as a
member of Energy & Commerce. He wants universal health care. He wants
health reform for the people whom he represents. I think we'll continue
to work on getting this done. He shares the goal with the president,
that no federal funding will be provided for abortion.

DOWD: Do you think a deal can be done that does not include the
language he wants, but something in (inaudible), is that one of the
things that can be considered?

SEBELIUS: I think the Senate bill, actually, has a different set of
words than the amendment that Representative Stupak had in the House,
but confirmed by legal scholars and various people that it does exactly
the same thing. There are no federal funds for abortions. But I think
that if that does not satisfy the congressman, the conversations will
continue. But certainly, his goal and the president's goal are the same
-- do not change the status quo on abortion.

DOWD: Well, lots of interesting issues to resolve and a deadline
that the president set for March 17th, trying to get the House to pass
the Senate bill in the House before he leaves on his foreign trip. I
appreciate you being here. Thanks for coming.

DOWD: We're joined now by the Senate Minority Leader, the point
person for the Republicans, Republican Mitch McConnell. Thanks for coming.

MCCONNELL: Good morning. Glad to be with you.

DOWD: Well, in the last few months, Republican have been very
successful at winning some elections. Democrats have also taken on
quite a bit of water on health care and politically. But we found an
interesting graphic that I'd like to talk to you about. This graphic
shows who does the American public trusts on health care. 49 percent
say they trust President Obama; 37 percent say they trust the Democrats
in Congress; and only 32 percent say they trust Republican leaders in
Congress. And if you're in third place on this, even though things are
politically in a good place, why is that?

MCCONNELL: Well, you see, Matthew, it's about the bill. It's about
the policy. Not about the president, not about Senate and House
Democrats and Republicans. It's about the bill. The American people
are focused on this like a laser. Everybody is interested in health
care. Obviously, when you get older, you're more interested in it, but
everybody is interested in it. The American people have been deeply
involved in this debate. What did they see? They see a bill that cuts
Medicare by half a trillion dollars, that raises taxes about half a
trillion dollars, and that almost certainly will raise the cost of
insurance for those on the individual market.

They also see the way it was passed, the cornhusker kickback, the
Louisiana purchase, the gator-aid behind closed doors. They look at
this whole package, both in terms of the policy and the process, and
they say they don't want it.

And so what you see now, if I may just finish on this point, is an
argument not between Democrats and Republicans but it's between
Democrats and their own constituents.

DOWD: Well, I think Republicans have obviously put up a blockade to
try to keep this from happening at all, even while the Democrats have
had a majority in the Senate.

But I, sort of, want to focus on, what Republicans do to change that
message in where they get some benefit out of this?

Right now, it's as if the country says "a pox on everyone,"
including the Republicans, who, as the graph shows, are in third place.

What can Republicans do to affect that and get -- have a better
place in the American public?

MCCONNELL: Well, look, you're talking about the election in
November. I'm talking about the policy in the country now. What the
American people would like us to do is not make this gargantuan mistake,
in spite of Secretary Sebelius's best efforts. What we're talking about
here is a $2.5 trillion spending program, brand-new entitlement.

We are drowning already in a sea of debt. The Congressional Budget
Office numbers just came out Friday. We're looking at $10 trillion in
new debt in the next 10 years, Matthew.

People are very, very skeptical about starting a whole new
government program when we're drowning in a sea of debt.

DOWD: Well, you know, if you take a look at what the American
public's perception on this is, it's hard for them to trust either side
on debt and on the deficit and on spending.

They saw the deficit rise dramatically during President Bush's
presidency and while you were majority leader. And they see it rise
even more today. And in their view, neither party can be trusted on this.

So what makes it -- what makes you seem to feel that they'll trust
the Republicans when they talk about the debt as opposed to the Democrats?

MCCONNELL: Well, again, you're talking about what may happen in
November. I'm talking about what's happening now. We are -- we are
spending -- we are on a gargantuan spending spree. The American people
would like for us to stop, quit doing it, quit spending this massive
amount of money and racking up these tremendous debts.

That $10 trillion figure added to the debt over the next 10 years --
half of it, over $5 trillion, will simply be interest on the debt.

So what I think the American people are saying to us -- stop this
job-killing health care bill; we know it will drive taxes up and that
will not be good to help us get out of the recession; step back and
terminate the spending spree.

DOWD: Well, do you think the Democrats, at this point, will push
through that bill by any means necessary?

So is your expectation that you're going to try as you might to kill
the bill but they will end up passing the bill by any means they can?

MCCONNELL: Well, it seems that they're certainly trying to do
that. I mean, as everyone understands, if the House passes the Senate
bill, it goes straight to the president for signatures. So all of this
discussion about the second bill, the reconciliation bill, is really,
kind of, irrelevant. If the House passes the Senate bill, it goes to
the president for a signature.

That means that every single member of the House who voted for this
will have voted for the kickback, the purchase, the gator-aid, all of
that, and the Medicare cut.

DOWD: That's an interesting question. So how does -- if the House
Democrats pass the Senate bill, it basically, at that point, can go to
the president.

How -- what is the procedure, then, that would prevent that from
happening?

The House Democrats, I guess, have to trust the Senate Democrats
that they'll take it up again?

MCCONNELL: Yes, the House has to trust the Senate that we'll go
back in and fix the most egregious political problems.

But let me tell you what won't be fixed. What won't be fixed is the
half a trillion in Medicare cuts, a half a trillion in new taxes.

And also, you wanted to talk about the politics of this a minute
ago. Let's turn to that. The argument, incredulously, that the
Democratic leadership and the president seem to be making to the
wavering Democrats is, the best way to deal with this politically is to
pass it and get it behind us.

Well, look, the only way to guarantee that it's ahead of you is to
pass it. That means that every election this fall will be a referendum
on this bill.

DOWD: Well, yes, and I wanted to get to that. You're on record as
saying that, if they pass this health care bill, that you and the rest
of the Republicans are going to campaign on repealing it.

And will you message be, at that point, that we're going to take
away health insurance from 30 million Americans that now have it, based
on this bill?

MCCONNELL: Well, as you pointed out to Secretary Sebelius, the
benefits don't kick in for four years. All the American people are
going to be confronted with in the next four years are these massive
cuts to Medicare, not to make Medicare more sustainable -- by the way,
we all know Medicare, right now, is going broke in seven years, and they
want to turn it into a piggy bank to start a whole new program for a
different set of people.

The tax increases kick in immediately. So there's nothing -- just
looking at the politics of it, there's nothing but pain here for the
next four years. Why in the world would they conclude that that would
be popular?

DOWD: Are you worried that what's going on out there in America is
not necessarily anti-Democratic, even though they've suffered at the
elections?

Your colleague, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, lost pretty
dramatically in a primary, and lost primarily based upon her Washington
experience.

So as senators and congressmen go out and campaign who are incumbent
Republicans, do you think they're in danger as well?

MCCONNELL: Well, I think, you know, everybody knows who's running
Washington. There's a Democrat in the White House, a Democrat House,
and a Democrat Senate, by very large majorities.

I think the American people are clear about who's running up the
debt, who's been on this spending spree for the last 12 months.

DOWD: Well, one of the things, I think, that's complicated it,
that's come up in -- recently -- is what's happened with Senator
Bunning, and his desire to, sort of, stop the unemployment benefits bill
by standing alone in -- in the Senate and getting that done. He also
(inaudible) abdicated on that.

What I'm trying to understand is, why, if that principle is a good
principle, that we shouldn't add to the deficit, why was he basically
told to stand down, by the leadership, and not do that, even though that
is supposedly a Republican principle?

He had a good point. I ended up voting with him. His point was --
it wasn't against unemployment insurance. He thought we ought to pay
for it, make it deficit-neutral.

And, you know, all of us are deeply concerned about this. There was
a fascinating piece in the USA Today, I think it was Friday, about the
economy right now, and the only entity that's doing any good is the
government. This new administration's added 120,000 government jobs,
while the private sector's shedding jobs.

The average government employee now makes $70,000 a year, the
average private-sector employee only $40,000 a year. These are boom
days if you're a government employee. And the way we're financing that,
Matthew, is to borrow money from our grandchildren so we can have more
government employees now.

These are the kinds of things that Senator Bunning thought ought to
be addressed by making it deficit-neutral.

DOWD: I'd like to turn to one final thing that's been in the news
recently, which is this PowerPoint presentation that the RNC had put
together about raising money.

It's very controversial. I'd like to show it to you, if you could
take a look at this. They basically, as you can see -- it's how they're
going to -- they're going to appeal to fear, extreme negative feelings,
"reactionary," and, basically, in a very cynical way, most of the public
would think, and in a very crass way, how they're going to appeal to them.

Is that something -- the kind of messaging that you think is going
to be helpful in the course of this next year?

MCCONNELL: Well, its -- that sort of thing is uncertainly not
helpful. I can't imagine why anybody would have thought that was helpful.

I mean, typically, the way parties raise money is because people
believe in the causes that they advocate. I think the way we raise
money from donors across America is to stand for things that are
important for the country.

DOWD: You think somebody should be held accountable for that?

MCCONNELL: Well, look, I don't run the RNC. That's up to them.
But I don't like it, and I don't know anybody who does.

DOWD: Well, I think that's all we have for today. I appreciate you
being here, and thanks for coming.

MCCONNELL: Thank you.

DOWD: The roundtable is next, with George Will, Donna Brazile,
Torie Clark and Robert Reich. And later, the Sunday funnies.

GOV. DAVID A. PATERSON, D-N.Y.: There are times in politics when
you have to know not to strive for service, but to step back. That
moment has come for me.

REP. CHARLES B. RANGEL, D-N.Y.: My issues, if they were going to
impede the elections of then Democratic Party, then I would be glad to
entertain a leave of absence.

REP. ERIC MASSA, D-N.Y.: There are blogs that are out there
saying that I'm leaving because I harassed my staff. Do I use salty
language? Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOWD: Growing political scandal. We'll talk about that in a
minute.

Joining us today, is George Will, Torie Clarke, Robert Reich,
University of California Berkeley professor, and Donna Brazile. Thank
you all for coming.

George, health care. You saw Secretary Sebelius. You saw
Senator McConnell. Can they get this done? Can the Democrats get
this done? And if so, what took them so long?

WILL: Here is what took them so long. When this debate started
a year ago, 85 percent of the American people had health insurance and
95 percent of that 85 percent were pretty happy with what they had.
Since then, the country has become much more preoccupied with the
deficit. Washington is borrowing 42 cents of every dollar it spends.
Every day, today, tomorrow and for the next two decades, 10,000 more
baby boomers go on the Medicare and Social Security rolls, and they
are worried about this. And the president comes along and says, I've
got a great idea. Let's have a $1 trillion new entitlement which, by
the way, will lower the deficit, which people don't quite believe.

Finally, they've been -- we have all learned lots of new issues
in this. For example, why can't we buy insurance across state lines?
You turn on television, you see Geico arguing with Allstate on car
insurance, arguing with Progressive on car insurance. And the
American people say, a caveman can understand this. We should be able
to buy in a national market.

DOWD: Do you think they will pass the bill?

WILL: It's only -- the House is all that matters. The Senate
passed a bill, it goes to the president. What we know for sure, Matt,
is if they had the votes today, they would vote tomorrow morning. So
they don't have them yet.

DOWD: Donna? Do you think they can pass the bill? And again,
what's took them so long with huge majorities they have in the Senate
and the House?

BRAZILE: Well, first of all, it's been 60 years, and we have
come a long way in the 60 years. And we're at the finish line. And I
think with the speaker now talking to some of the Democrats who
opposed it on fiscal grounds, they like the Senate bill because it's
smaller. It reduces the deficit by a larger number. I think that the
speaker will be able to get the House Democrats to approve the Senate
bill, that will allow the Senate to go forward with reconciliation on
the small items to fix the bill. We'll get a health care bill
sometime within the next couple of months.

DOWD: So in the spring, a health care bill?

BRAZILE: Look, I'm not one to set deadlines. I think it's
important that they get it right, that it lowers costs, provide more
coverage for those without health insurance. And if they can achieve
that, we'll have a bill.

DOWD: Torie, what do you think?

CLARKE: You know, I'm going to keep with the Oscar themes that
you've started. Do you guys remember the movie "Ishtar?" Warren
Beatty, Dustin Hoffman. They spent millions and millions and millions
of dollars on it, you heard so much about it. And then when people
actually started seeing it, they said, this is terrible. And the
longer it hangs out there, the harder it is. Politically, Republicans
and Democrats are looking to say the best and worst thing that can
happen for the Democrats is that they pass this. They pass it, they
can say, ah, we got it done after 60 years. And then they have to
defend it from now until November. And I think it will be very tough
to defend a lot of the things inside that bill.

DOWD: Well, Robert, do you think this is a political problem for
them? They haven't been able to talk about jobs. Or do you think
once they have passed this bill, they can quickly turn to jobs and the
economy, which is what the American public seems to care about?

REICH: You know, Matt, it is possible to talk about two things
at the same time. And the American public is capable of thinking
about that, and two things.

Look, jobs is certainly the issue of this year and maybe next.
But health care is the issue of our time, our era. And this is the
opportunity to finally do something about it.
The health insurers are not -- George, you said that they're
popular and every likes their health insurer. They like their doctor.
They hate their health insurer. And health insurance is going up in
terms of rates, 20, 30, 40, 50 percent in many states. In fact,
Goldman Sachs just this past week has said to its many of its
investors, invest in some insurance companies because they don't have
competition, and they are -- they have -- they are exhibiting huge
profits.

That's money directly out of the pockets of Americans.

DOWD: George.

WILL: A, you say they have huge profits. As you know,
confiscate all the profits of all the health insurance companies, with
those profits, you could finance our health care for 48 hours. What
you do for the next 363 days, I don't know. Second, you say there's
not enough competition? Fine, let them compete in a national market
across state line.

REICH: Yes, let them compete across state lines. Fine. But not
a race to the bottom. Set minimum federal standards. Because we've
seen over and over again, that the recipients of health insurance
don't know what they're buying, very often. Until there are common
standards, minimum standards, then people are going to--

(CROSSTALK)

REICH: And that's what's happened over and over again.

WILL: There you have the premise of this legislation and the
core of today's liberalism. The American people are such dopes, they
can't be counted upon to buy their own insurance.

REICH: They're not dopes. They've been taken. It's just like
finance regulation.

DOWD: Donna, on insurance companies, do you think what the
president and Kathleen Sebelius has done in the last week, is this
purely politics? Everybody hates insurance companies, let's beat up
on them? Or is there policy involved here?

BRAZILE: There's a lot of policy, Matt. The fact that women are
paying much more than men for the same coverage, and just because we
have, you know, certain biological needs that may need attended to
from time to time. That's unfair. Pre-existing conditions. If
George wants to defend these insurance companies denying people health
insurance because they have a pre-existing problem and they can't find
coverage, kicking people off the insurance roll simply because the
insurance company decides, and not the patient or the doctor. Look,

Look, I think the Democrats will be able to defend this bill.
They will be able to tell the American people that it is going to
lower their cost, improve coverage for people without health
insurance, and it helped businesses, small businesses who cannot find
health insurance for their employees.
So this is a good approach, and I hope the Democrats get it over
the finish line soon, so that we can walk and chew gum.

DOWD: Torie, politics or policy on insurance companies at this
point?

CLARKE: Oh, you can make a sweeping generalization about
everybody, but this very conversation is emblematic of the part of the
problem, which is everybody focuses on a different piece of it. And I
think the majority of the American people out there are not quite sure
what we're fixing anymore. Is it access? Is it cost? What is it?
And the more confusion, the more they say, boy, I don't know if I
really want this right now. And the Democrats are going to suffer
from a lack of managing expectations. They keep making these
promises, and fairly or unfairly, say the bill passes, the American
people are going to say next week, where is my change? Are my costs
coming down? Do I have more access to my doctor? They are not going
to see changes that quickly even if it passes. And that is going to
be a heavy price to pay between now and November.

REICH: Some of the changes will happen quickly. Small
businesses will have access to exchanges. They'll be able to have
more bargaining leverage. There are many things that Americans will
be able to see, and I think Democrats will be able to point with pride
at getting health care done.

But I agree with you, Torie, that in the short run, after this is
enacted, there is going to be some confusion, and Republicans are
going to do everything they possibly can to saw the seeds of even more
confusion.

DOWD: Well, let's turn to another speed bump, as opposed to
votes on health care, another speed bump that I think has gotten in
the way of the Democrats, which is this slew of scandals that have
come out, all seemingly based in New York, with a governor who is in
deep trouble, two congressmen, including the chairman of the Ways and
Means, Charlie Rangel, is in trouble. Donna, has New York become the
new Louisiana? With political corruption?

(CROSSTALK)

BRAZILE: Is it Illinois? Is it Georgia? I mean, you know,
when it comes to corruption, corruption is a bipartisan problem.

This was a bad week for Democrats when it comes to ethics. Mr.
Rangel rightly stepped aside. He's a great man. I have enormous
respect for him. He's a war hero, but he did the right thing by
stepping aside. Mr. Massa, I think, is also doing the right thing.
He went to -- his staff went to Steny Hoyer, one of the leaders in the
Congress and said, hey, we've got a problem. Mr. Hoyer said, you have
48 hours to fix it. Meaning go to the Ethics Committee. He did that.

The difference is, is that when Democrats identify these
problems, they quickly, you know, turn it over to the Ethics Committee
and say, let's move. Unlike the Republicans who just waited and
waited and waited. But I do believe at the end of the day, we're
going to put this behind us and hold these politicians to the highest
standards possible.

DOWD: George, does this have more of an effect, it's just a
temporary thing, or can this have an effect on the election?

WILL: I think it colors the election. I mean, if people knew
about New York -- I like the -- what was it, a New York City
councilman billed $177 for a bagel and a soda? There's the
assemblywoman who threw scolding coffee in the eyes of her staff
member. One guy up there stole from the Little League. That's not
good.

Now, does it color this? I think the 1984 (sic) election is
often blamed because they didn't pass Hillary's health care plan.
Nonsense.

DOWD: 1994.

WILL: '94, sorry. What happened then, 40 years of Democratic
control of the House of Representatives ended because the entitlement
mentality had become so strong that they had the House banking
scandal, and things like that colored the election.

REICH: I find it very, very hard to believe that even the past
week is on par with Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff and the moral and
ethical turpitude spread over the Republican Party before 2006.

I do think that there is an ethical issue here--

DOWD: Some might say there's still plenty of time.

(CROSSTALK)

REICH: I think it's a bipartisan ethical issue. When the Ethics
Committee in the House said recently that it doesn't matter if there
are earmarks that look to everyone as if they are payments and
paybacks for political campaigns, whether it's Republicans or
Democrats getting those earmarks, that, to me, is really offensive. I
don't know how you guys feel, but that to me is the biggest moral and
ethical problem we have.

(CROSSTALK)

REICH: Why do we have these earmarks?

CLARKE: Neither party has the monopoly on corruption and
sleaziness. The Democrats are making a very hard run for it in this
last week. I think more interesting is the long-term effects. I
think it adds to the cynicism about Washington. It's Washington and
they play by different rules and they set up rules for themselves. I
think you're going to see more of what happened to Kay Bailey
Hutchison and Rick Perry. If you're not from Washington or you can
pretend you're not really part of the Washington culture, you're going
to do better. And it's sad more than anything else.

DOWD: Well that brings up an interesting spot -- Senator Lincoln
in Nebraska -- I mean in Arkansas is in a very tight race in the
primary and the general election and she just put a spot on the air,
which is an amazing spot for an incumbent to run, which is basically
not lauding what she's done in Washington, but stopping what she's
done even though she's part of the majority. Let's take a look at
that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is why I voted against giving more
money to Wall Street, against the auto company bailout, against the
public option health care plan and against the cap and trade bill
which would raise energy costs on our kids. None of those were right
for Arkansas. Some in my party didn't like it very much. But I
approved this message because I don't answer to my party. I answer to
Arkansas.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOWD: George, to me, that is an amazing ad that an incumbent
Democratic senator as part of the majority would run in their home
state?

WILL: It's cognitive dissonance on a grand scale. Until recently
it was said the Republicans are wicked because they're the party of
no. She just put up an ad saying I said no to bail outs, this, this,
this, and this. No is a lovely word.

Except for that last line, almost any Republican could run that
ad this year.

DOWD: Well Donna --

BRAZILE: The lieutenant governor in Arkansas is going to
challenge her. Within the last five days, he's been able to raise
over $1 million online from liberal and progressive groups that
believe that Senator Lincoln no longer stands for progressive ideals.
So she's fighting for her political survival. It is going to be a
very interesting primary, similar to what's going on in the Republican
Party right now in terms of their primary process. But at the end of
the day, the senator like Senator Hutchison and others, must
demonstrate what is she doing for the people in Arkansas, what is she
doing in terms of service to the country.

REICH: Exactly. There is always a strong anti-incumbent, anti-
establishment current in the country, against Washington. It is not
new, it's been here for over 200 years. But what's complicated for
Democrats this year is you have such high unemployment. You've got
that anti-establishment feeling coupled with some -- a lot of deep
anxiety and you run the risk of not losing the House and Senate, but
you run the risk of really having some major inroads. But the
direction of the economy may, and I think, will improve by the midterm
elections.

CLARKE: There's something different about this though.
Candidates for years have always said, yes, I'm a good conservative or
I'm a good moderate Democrat. But here's the one issue on which I
bucked my party, kind of demonstrate their independence. She lists
several issues. And I wonder how much heartburn does that create for
the campaign committees, for the Democratic leaders in Washington
going, on top of everything else, all the challenges we have.

REICH: Aren't we seeing it on "This Week?"

CLARKE: Well, I think you'll see a lot more after that.

BRAZILE: But Torie, you saw the Republicans do that in 2006.
They ran from Bush and Cheney. They ran from the deficits. They ran
--

REICH: It wasn't very effective.

BRAZILE: Right, but the rate that that's -- again, I agree with
the secretary. This is part of how people run their campaigns. They
try to establish their independence from their political party.

DOWD: Well a lot of us have watched politics for many, many
years, and normally people from Washington come back to their district
and say, here's everything I have done. Kay Bailey Hutchison tried to
do it and she lost badly in the primary. Now you have an incumbent
senator in the spot not saying here's everything I've done, but here's
everything I've tried to stop. It is a big difference from what I've
seen before. Usually I go back and say here's all my stuff I should
do. George, isn't this like a totally different kind of messaging
when you're coming from Washington?

WILL: It's a beautiful message.

DOWD: Highly successful.

WILL: There's a little dislocation on the American governments
here also. More senators, a larger percentage of the Senate candidate
this year are in jeopardy than the House are for a very simple reason.
We have so become sophisticated with drawing legislative districts
with gerrymandering that we have reversed the old axiom. It used to
be the voters picked their representatives. Now the representatives
picks their voters. And in the last four cycles, 95 percent of
incumbents, in spite of what Bob talks about, 95 percent have been re-
elected.

DOWD: Bob, that is an interesting point he's making which is
nobody focuses on this too much. But in the elections in the midterm,
everybody focused on Congress and the Senate. The state legislative
seats are probably the most important thing that people should focus
on because they're the ones that draw the districts.

REICH: Exactly. And for example in Texas, they made elusion to
there's going to be four new congressional seats and who is in that
governor's office makes a big, big difference.

DOWD: But Donna, are the Democrats focused on this? Focused on
the state legislature as opposed to keep preserving congressman and
congresswomen?

BRAZILE: To quote that famous governor now turned comedian, you
betcha. There's no question that that legislative seats matter. But
also the interesting thing in Texas, from my observation is that while
Rick Perry is still wildly popular, who wouldn't be? He is handsome.
I must say, he looks good on the eyes. You know, I look at him. It's
just look looking at Scott Brown. I like all these centerfolds.

CLARKE: Just for the record, a guy could not say that about any
of the female candidates. I think that's unfair, but go ahead, Donna.

BRAZILE: Thank you.

(CROSSTALK)

BRAZILE: -- verbal sexual harassment, I just committed it.

But I have to say that, look, he ran against Dick Cheney, he ran
against Karl Rove. But he only wanted to campaign against Kay Bailey
Hutchison. But the interesting thing is that there was a TEA Party
candidate in that race, Debra Medina, who I think allowed the race to
skew to the far right, where Rick Perry had such a hold on
conservatives. It left Kay Bailey without moderates and independents
to support her.

REICH: Governors races are not anti-Washington races. I mean,
they are about domestic issues inside the state. That's what that
issue and that race is all about.

I mean, the big question is what happens when White, Bill White
actually takes on the incumbent. And that is going to be something
that everybody watches.

BRAZILE: Former mayor.

DOWD: Do you think at this point in time this is not -- this is
a totally anti-incumbent year, and not an anti-Democratic year, anti-
Republican year? It's purely anti-Washington, anti-incumbent?

WILL: I think it's the latter, and I think I'll disagree with
Bob. I think Tip O'Neill's famous and overworked axiom that all
politics is local is just wrong. A lot of politics this year is
national.

REICH: But George, let me go back to something you said before,
because so much of what government has done is so popular. I was
struck by Mitch McConnell when he was interviewed here before,
defending Medicare. And, in fact, over the past six months, I keep on
seeing signs from TEA Partiers saying "don't take way my Medicare."

I mean, Medicare is a government program. It's extraordinarily
popular. It is also a problem. We have got to get some control over
the increase in the costs of Medicare. And that's what the new bill
does, the new health care bill.

But, after a while, the public takes many of these programs for
granted. Social Security is extraordinarily popular. And I think we
lose sight of the fact that the public depends upon government in so
many ways.

DOWD: Well, we're going to turn from hardball politics to
something a little softer. The Oscars are on tonight. The Academy
Awards are on tonight. And I want to ask each of you all, who is your
pick? We're not going to be able to go through best actor or best
actress, but best picture. George, who is your pick for best picture?

WILL: The one of the ten that I have seen, "The Blind Side."

(LAUGHTER)

DOWD: "The Blind Side," the story of the football player who
came from--

WILL: (inaudible), from Mississippi.

(CROSSTALK)

DOWD: Torie?

CLARKE: "Blind Side" is a great movie, and it's a great story,
but I think it's "The Hurt Locker." It's an important topic. It's an
amazing story, and it's just beautifully done.

DOWD: Seems to have all the buzz right now. Robert?

REICH: "Hurt Locker," absolutely. If "Avatar" wins and "Hurt
Locker" doesn't, I think that says something terrible about the
Academy, the Motion Picture Academy. But so many of them are actors
who are going to be voting, that they don't want "Avatar," because
"Avatar" says, essentially, we don't need actors anymore.

CLARKE: And we'll have to listen to James Cameron give a
dreadful speech if he won, so let's hope.
BRAZILE: Well, I'm for -- I'm for "Avatar." I enjoyed the
movie. I will go back and watch it again and again. I like "Hurt
Locker," but it kept me on edge. I don't need an edge at my age.

REICH: It's good. Edge (ph) is good.

BRAZILE: No, I don't an edge at my age. You understand that,
but I'll tell you later. I liked "The Blind Side." I loved
"Precious," but this year, "Avatar."

DOWD: Well, I'm going to have to -- I'll pick "The Blind Side."
Any movie that makes a star out of an offensive tackle, I have to like
that movie.

The roundtable continues in the green room on ABCnews.com. We've
also got a poll there where you can vote for your all-time favorite
political movie. That's at abcnews.com.